Luke said that Jesus was born at a census when
Quirinius (KJV: Cyrenius) was a ruler in Syria. This reference has been an
enigma to historians for generations because no such census of Quirinius has
been found by historians which could have occurred from 7 to 1 B.C.E.
Scholars have stated that Luke simply did not know what he was talking
about, and that he probably got his facts mixed-up with the census of
Quirinius that took place in C.E. 6/7. There is undisputed evidence that
Quirinius was governor beginning in C.E. 6/7 and that he conducted a census
at that time (even Luke mentioned it ― Acts 5:37). But up to now, no
available information has been discovered to show that Quirinius was an
administrator (and a census taker) in 3/2 B.C.E. or in previous years. This
new historical research, however, can find that census of Quirinius in the
historical records which took place at Jesus’ nativity. In the New
Testament, Luke actually states that the “census” was an enrollment or a
registration of some kind. He does not say what Quirinius’ census was for;
but we now can discover the reason for his census.

Let us recall from the last chapter that Tertullian
said that Roman records supported the fact that censuses (he used the
plural) were conducted in Palestine at the time of Jesus’ birth. Tertullian
said they took place at the time when Saturninus was governor of Syria.
Tertullian, though, said nothing about Quirinius as conducting those
censuses. This early Christian scholar also identified the year with that
which we now reckon as 3/2 B.C.E. If the biblical narrative given to us by
Luke and that of Tertullian can be married together, how could it be that
two governors (Saturninus and Quirinius) were then in Syria at the same
time? This poses a problem and it has been one of long standing.

Perhaps Josephus provides a clue to help straighten
out the mystery. The historian mentioned that actually there were
“governors” (plural) in Syria during the rule of Saturninus. 1
While during the earlier governorships of Titius and Quintilius Varus,
Josephus spoke of a “governor” (singular), 2
but during the administration of Saturninus why does he mention the plural
“governors”?

How many governors were there at this time? Josephus
mentions the names of Saturninus and Volumnius. Were these the only men to
whom Josephus was referring? Or, could Quirinius be considered as well? This
is the very time Luke in his Gospel places the administration of a census by
Quirinius. Since it is clear that Saturninus was the regular governor, it
must be held that the rule of Quirinius was of a different and special
nature. Such special status could well accord with the other types of
commands that Quirinius held as attested in the historical records.

Quirinius’ war against the Homonadenses, for which
Tacitus singled him out for praise, has been called a
“special command.”3
This status is also reflected in an inscription which mentions Quirinius
“as holding an
honorary municipal office at Antioch-by-Pisidia.”4
And it was certainly a special command for Quirinius when he became rector
of the young Gaius Caesar when Gaius acquired residential authority at
Antioch over the eastern provinces in C.E. 1. 5
Gaius was probably not strictly called the governor of Syria at the time (C.E.
1 to 4) and it may well be that Quirinius was responsible for running the
everyday affairs of government. Tacitus said that Quirinius was one having
“considerable talents
for business.”6
This could account for his selection as being “guardian” of Gaius who was
the heir to the Empire. Too, as our historical reconstruction shows,
Quirinius already had experience in Syria by administering the censuses
Tertullian talked about in 3/2 B.C.E. which took place during the time when
Saturninus was governor. All these references indicate special commands for
Quirinius throughout his entire governmental career. There are other
historical records about Quirinius which show his special assignments.

Quirinius Was a Special Delegate

This special status of Quirinius is also suggested
when he later became governor of Syria in C.E. 6/7. Josephus said he was
given the rank of dikaiodotes ― a governor, but in the sense of one
having extraordinary judicial powers (the word dikaiodotes means
“judge”). And Professor Feldman quoting J.A.O. Larson in the Loeb
translation of Josephus states,

“that the word dikaiodotes is found only in
Antiquities, XVIII. 1 and in inscriptions from Lycia in the sense of
‘governor.’ Larson plausibly suggests that the word was not so much a title
for a governor as an honorary appellation, much like soter or
euergetes. It would emphasize the high regard with which the governor
was held as an honest judge, the duties of the governor (in Lydia, at least)
being largely judicial.”

Italics mine

Quirinius, then, was even an unusual type of
administrator in Syria during the period C.E. 6/7. It could be said that he
had special (and probably extensive) powers directly from Augustus. He could
have been called, in contemporary terms, a powerful “man-Friday” for
Augustus or, officially, a Legatus Augusti. This certainly must be
the case. When Quirinius conducted the census at the time of Saturninus,
Justin Martyr said that Roman historical records showed Quirinius as being
the procurator in Judaea. 7
Justin dated this political role of Quirinius to the time when Jesus was
born. Since Justin was a 2nd century author referring to Roman
records, it is reasonable that he must have been acquainted with the various
Roman political titles afforded to eminent officials. It is a shame that
Justin’s reference that Quirinius was a procurator at the time of
Jesus’ nativity (and not a governor) has seldom been mentioned by
historians. But its implication is of profound importance. A procurator
was normally a personal advocate of the emperor with special authority quite
distinct from the residential governor.

This indication of Justin may have significance to
our question concerning Quirinius. The Cambridge Ancient History, vol,
X, p. 216, has an interesting comment on the role of a Roman procurator.
“Each province had its
equestrian procurator who in the eyes of the provincials was almost as
important as the governor himself.”8
These procurators were appointed by the Emperor quite independently
of the legatus (governor), and the relations between the two were
frequently none too friendly. The fact that Justin said that Quirinius was a
procurator while conducting the “census” gives much weight to the
belief that a resident governor also ruled Syria at the same time. It looks
like Luke was well aware of the fact that Quirinius was in Palestine
conducting a registration of peoples when Saturninus was the actual governor
of Syria. (I will soon discuss why biblical translators erroneously call
Quirinius a governor.)

Why A Census or Registration in 3/2 B.C.E.?

We have no early historical information other than
Luke and Tertullian that a census of the Roman world took place in 3/2 B.C.E.,
Augustus, with his own hand, composed an account of major events in his
life. He wrote of the official censuses in 28 B.C.E., 8 B.C.E., and C.E. 14,
9
but nothing in our year of discussion. Yet in his Gospel, Luke said the
whole Roman world was involved in some kind of “census.” Why was there an
Empire registration of peoples in 3/2 B.C.E. of which Luke speaks? When one
recalls the history of that period ― particularly what happened in 2 B.C.E.
― we may well have the reason for such a registration.

Recall that in chapter one of this book I pointed
out that the year 2 B.C.E. was one of the most important and glorious in the
career of Augustus. It was the Silver Jubilee of his supreme rule over the
Empire and the year in which the Senate awarded him the country’s highest
decoration the
“Pater Patriae” (Father of the Country). There was no year
like it for majestic celebrations in Rome, and since the significance of the
festivities involved the entirety of the Empire, there can be little doubt
that similar anniversary ceremonies were ordained by Augustus and the Senate
for all the provinces.

It should be remembered that back in 27 B.C.E.
Augustus was given complete and absolute allegiance by the Senate and people
of Rome. Would there not have been a renewal of their loyalty to Augustus in
the Jubilee year? If so, we could well have a reference to an Empire-wide
registration of loyalty to the emperor. Josephus mentioned that Augustus
demanded an oath of allegiance about twelve or fifteen months before the
death of Herod. This event would fit nicely with a decree going out from
Augustus in 3 B.C.E. that all were to give an oath of allegiance to him at
some designated time during the year. Obviously, the recording of oaths
(where people ascribed their names) was a type of registration. That is what
Luke said the census was. It was an enrollment of people.

The Oath Was a Census

If the oath of loyalty mentioned by Josephus is what
brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem (I will quote the text in a moment),
then it makes sense why Mary had to accompany Joseph. In a regular census
Mary would not have needed to go with Joseph, nor would Joseph have needed
to travel so far. Some have suspected that both Joseph and Mary were
descendants of David, and were legitimate claimants to the throne of Israel
(had such a throne existed). It could easily be seen why Mary, as well as
Joseph, was expected to sign the oath of loyalty to Augustus. All “royal
claimants” would have especially been singled out to give the oath of
allegiance. This would even have involved Mary. It was possible in Jewish
circles for female descendants of David to have the rights of primogeniture
and kingship for their offspring (cf. Antiquities, XVIII. 124 and
also Acts 16:1–3 where the principle of legal maternal descent is shown).

Luke tells us that the reason why both Joseph and
Mary went to Bethlehem was because he was reckoned as belonging to the house
of David. While everyone else went
“into his own city” (Luke 2:3)
no doubt in their own local neighborhoods, those of royal Judaic lineage
because of political implications had to register in Bethlehem. This
requirement would allow Herod to know who all claimants were in Judaea to
the royal throne of David. He was anxious to know who all these people were
(in order to keep them subjected to thorough non-political functions) so
that his own dynasty would survive. This was especially important at this
time in history because there was then a great deal of messianic expectation
among the Jews.

Registering David’s descendants in Bethlehem, the
city of David, would have been a ploy not only to get all the people to
attend for prestige purposes but for Herod to find out who they were. Since
Augustus had ordered that an oath of allegiance be given to him, Herod
simply included himself and the legitimacy of his kingdom within the same
oath. And since females among the Jews could give Davidic heirship to
descendants, Herod included the women as well. This would have given him a
complete record of all such claimants to the throne. This could well be why
Mary was expected to accompany Joseph. Let us now look at that oath of
loyalty mentioned by Josephus in greater detail.

Josephus and the Census of Quirinius

Josephus referred to the second (and the ordinary)
census conducted by Quirinius in C.E. 6, but what about the first one which
Tertullian said took place in the time of Saturninus who was governor of
Syria in 3/2 B.C.E.? Lardner, as early as the 18th century, was
convinced that Josephus mentioned this earlier one as well. 10
The oath referred to in Josephus and the registration of Luke may be one and
the same. The best thing to do is to quote the remarks of Josephus about the
oath in their entirety.

“There was moreover a certain sect of Jews who valued
themselves highly for their exact knowledge of the law; and talking much of
their contact with God, were greatly in favor with the women of Herod’s
court. They are called Pharisees. They are men who had it in their power to
control kings; extremely subtle, and ready to attempt any thing against
those whom they did not like. When therefore the whole Jewish nation took an
OATH to be faithful to Caesar, and
[to] the
interests of the king, these men, to the number of above six thousand,
refused to swear. The king having laid a fine upon them, Pheroras’ wife
[Herod’s sister-in-law]
paid the money for them. They, in requital for her kindness (for they were
supposed, by their great intimacy with God, to have attained to the gift of
prophecy), prophesied that God having decreed to put an end to the
government of Herod and his race, the kingdom would be transferred to her
and Pheroras and their children. Salome
[Herod’s sister],
who was aware of all that was being said, came and told the king of them.
She also told him that many of the court
[of Herod]
were corrupted by them. Then the king put to death the most guilty of the
Pharisees, and Bagoas the eunuch, and one Carus, the most beautiful young
man about the court, and the great instrument in the king’s unlawful
pleasures. He
[Herod]
likewise slew every one in his own family, who adhered to those things which
were said by the Pharisee. But Bagoas had been elevated by them and was told
that he should some day be called father and benefactor of the
[new]
king, who was to be appointed according to their prediction, for this king
would have all things in his power, and that he
[the king]
would give him
[Bagoas]
the capacity of marriage, and of having children of his own.”11

More than 6000 Pharisees refused to take the oath of
allegiance to Augustus and Herod. And as Josephus stated, this was because
of their belief that the Messiah and his age was just on the horizon. As
said before, Lardner went so far as to suggest that this oath of allegiance
and the census mentioned by Luke were one and the same. It may well be true.
There is a similarity in the wording within the two sources. Note how the
two texts are worded when placed beside each other. First notice Josephus.

“When therefore the whole Jewish nation TOOK AN
OATH to be faithful to Caesar and to the interests of the king
[Herod]
... above six thousand Pharisees refused to swear.”

Compared with the comments of Luke from original
Greek:

“Now in those days a decree was issued by Caesar
Augustus that all the world SHOULD BE REGISTERED
[enrolled].
This was the first registration when Quirinius was ruling from
Syria.” 12

Certainly, the reference in Josephus to the oath
must be looked on as some kind of a registrations swearing of loyalty to
Augustus and to Herod. How does one show loyalty? It is done by doing the
will of the ruler, giving him devotion, paying one’s share of taxes for the
upkeep of the government, and recognizing the legality of the regime. And,
no time in the Roman world would have been better for such an oath than the
year preceding the Silver Jubilee celebrations. It could even have been
called a census, as well as a registration, because the recording of an oath
of allegiance from all people required the ascribing of their names to obey
Augustus and Herod. How else did Josephus know that over 6000 Pharisees
refused to take the oath unless some kind of record of their number had been
made?

The Census is Now Identified

Once the chronology of the period is properly
understood it can be seen that the oath would have been required about
twelve to fifteen months before the death of Herod. Anyone reading the
narrative of Josephus without pre-conceived opinions would have to put it
somewhere in that range of time. This oath would have been given during the
governorship of Saturninus, and that is the exact period when Tertullian
said the registration of Judaea was conducted. Coupled with this is the fact
that Luke called this “census” the first registration. It could mean
that he was distinguishing this “census” from the second (and
ordinary) census of Quirinius which took place in C.E. 6/7, or that this was
the first registration of its kind that ever took place. The latter
reason has the best credentials.

The truth is, the “oath” mentioned by Josephus and
the “census” of Luke are no doubt one and the same. All fits perfectly if
the registration was ordered by Augustus in the summer of 3 B.C.E. to be
completed by autumn of 2 B.C.E. during the year in which he was acclaimed
the PaterPatriae. We will see that this was the first time
that Augustus ever ordered all in the Empire to show such loyalty.

When the universal registration mentioned by Luke is
dated to 3 B.C.E., a flood of light comes on the scene showing several Roman
references to it. Since Luke said it was Augustus who gave the decree for an
Empire-wide registration, perhaps we should let Augustus tell us with his
personal statement about a political accounting of peoples that involved the
whole Empire. It took place in 3 B.C.E. just when Luke said a registration
occurred and when Josephus shows the Jews gave their oath to Augustus. This
was the first time the emperor had the whole Roman Empire award him
the title Pater Patriae (Father of the Country). We have a record
from Augustus that an Empire-wide registration took place in 3 B.C.E.

The Empire-wide Registration

Augustus received his most prestigious title, the
Pater Patriae, on February 5, 2 B.C.E. which was the Day of Concord on
the Roman religious calendar. But in what legal way did Augustus obtain this
title? In the Res Gestae, composed by Augustus himself, he wrote,

“While I was administering my thirteenth consulship
the senate and the equestrian order and the entire Roman people
[italics mine]
gave me the title Father of my Country.”13

Within the Empire there were over 4 million Roman
citizens. For the totality of the citizenry to approve the bestowal of the
Pater Patriae must have involved an Empire-wide accounting. Since
Augustus was officially given the award in early 2 B.C.E., the registering
of the citizens must have been decreed and began to be carried out sometime
in 3 B.C.E.

In this universal registration of citizen approval
regarding the “Fatherhood” of Augustus and the recognition of Supreme
authority that the title signified, it is reasonable that all non-citizens
in the Empire also gave some kind of recognizable approbation within the
same period of time. Since most people in Judaea and the Empire were not
Roman citizens, Augustus could well have decreed in 3 B.C.E. that everyone
should swear an oath of absolute obedience to him to accompany his majestic
award as being “Father of the Country.” This would have been an appropriate
gesture from all peoples in acknowledging their obedience to him by the time
of his Jubilee Year of supreme power in 2 B.C.E.

Remarkably, an inscription found in Paphlagonia
(north central Asia Minor) that is clearly dated to 3 B.C. records an oath
of obedience “taken by
the inhabitants of Paphlagonia and the Roman businessmen dwelling among
them.” 14
The inscription states that Romans as well as non-citizens took the oath.
And importantly, the whole of the population were required to swear it.
“The same oath was
sworn also by all the people in the land[italics mine]
at the altars of
Augustus in the temples of Augustus in the various districts.”15
This was in 3 B.C.E. Also, in Judaea an oath was required of all the people
at the same time (as shown by my chronological reconstruction). 16
This is a reasonable hint that the oath mentioned by Josephus was the same
that the people of Paphlagonia were required to render. If so, then it could
have been a part of the Empire-wide recognition of Augustus’ Pater
Patriae.

Others Records About the Census

There is yet another point. The Armenian historian
Moses of Khorene said that the native sources he had available showed that
in the second year of Abgar, king of Armenia in 3 B.C.E., the census
mentioned by Luke brought Roman agents
“to Armenia, bringing the image of Augustus
Caesar, which they set up in every temple.”17
It is implied that people had to go to the temples to register for the
census. This information is very similar to that engraved on the
Paphlagonian inscription (also referring to 3 B.C.), that recorded the
“oath” given to Augustus. The same oath was sworn by all the people in the
land at the altars of Augustus in the temples of Augustus in the various
districts. The similarity of language is so striking (and since the year is
exactly the same), it may mean that we have Armenian history showing that
the registration mentioned by Luke did indeed occur in the year 3 B.C.E.

The fact that the census of Luke was actually an
Empire-wide oath to Augustus was recognized by Orosius, who lived in the 5th
century. He must have had early sources for his evidence. He wrote,

“[Augustus]
ordered that a census be taken of each province everywhere and that all men
be enrolled. ... This is the earliest and most famous public acknowledgment
which marked Caesar as the first of all men and the Romans as lords
of the world, a published list of all men entered individually .... This
first and greatest census was taken, since in this one name of Caesar all
the peoples of the great nations took oath, and at the same time,
through the participation in the census, were made apart of one society” 18

underlining mine

Orosius also identified the year for this enrollment
and oath as being 3 B.C.E. He said the oath was taken to enroll Augustus
“as the first of all
men” ― an apt description of the bestowal of the Pater
Patriae in his Silver Jubilee year and when the priestly celebrations
for the 750th anniversary of Rome took place. The fact that
Orosius equaled the census with an oath of allegiance to Augustus may well
mean that he had historical records that substantiated it.

Oaths Were Given at Censuses

The fact that oaths and censuses should go together
should be no strange thing. Most Roman census declarations required an oath
of allegiance to the emperor. One such declaration for property tax ended
with, “We swear by the
fortune of the Emperor Caesar Trajanus Hadrian Augustus. ... under oath.”
19“And I swear by the
Emperor Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus that I have kept nothing back.”20
It is thus very reasonable that the “census” mentioned by Luke could well
have been the “oath” referred to by Josephus, as well as Orosius, and the
Paphlagonian inscription.

It thus seems highly probable that all people in the
Empire registered an oath of obedience and an approval of the Pater
Patriae to Augustus at this time, 21
and that Quirinius had been sent to the East to conduct it for that section
of the Empire. This would mean that Quirinius possessed special powers that
were different than those of the resident governor. And though the
registration was decreed in 3 B.C.E. (and many took the oath at that time),
there was no doubt a few months allowed for peoples to register their oaths
because it was universal in application with all people involved in the
matter. It is reasonable that a period of about a year was allowed for the
complete enrollment. Thus, Augustus’ information in his Res Gestae,
the Paphlagonian inscription, the history of Armenia, Orosius, Josephus and
the statement of Luke historically blend together well.

The Registration Was Not For Taxation

Luke said that
“all the [Roman]
world should be
registered” (Luke 2:1). Some have assumed that this
“registering” was for taxation purposes. But Luke nowhere states that the
payment of moneys was the reason for the enrollment, though an oath of
obedience certainly involved financial accountability.

There is clear evidence that the registration
conducted by Quirinius was not for taxation. While King Herod was alive none
of the Jews in Judaea paid taxes to Rome. They paid them to Herod himself.
This is made clear in the events immediately following Herod’s death. The
Jews asked Archelaus (Herod’s successor) to relieve them of excessive taxes.
22
Had the Jews been paying taxes directly to Rome (brought about by the census
of Quirinius) this request would have been irrelevant. From 63 B.C.E. to 47
B.C.E. Judaea was a part of the province of Syria and paid tribute directly
to Rome. From 47 B.C.E. to 40 B.C.E. Hyrcanus was the
“ruler of a free republic,”23
but the Jews still paid direct taxes to Rome. When Herod became king,
however, the tribute to Rome ceased and Herod collected all taxes. This
continued until C.E. 6/7 when direct taxation was again imposed upon those
in Judaea. 24
This means that the registration by Quirinius in 3/2 B.C.E. was not strictly
for tax purposes. This helps to show that it was primarily a census of
loyalty to Augustus that all in the Empire had to undertake in honor of
Augustus’ “Fatherhood.” The Paphlagonian inscription called it an “oath,”
Josephus called it an “oath,” and Luke simply called it a “registration.”

There may be more evidence to support this. It was
common for Roman citizens to have their citizenship records checked every
five years. There were both municipal records in Italy and in the provinces
that registered citizenship status for Romans. When new citizens were
enrolled, they were registered in the official tribal lists at Rome, and in
many cases in the archives of their own native cities or other important
“Roman centers” throughout the Empire. 25
Roman citizenship at that time was a prized possession and people wanted
credentials of some kind to vouch for the title (cf. Acts 22:25–28).
The registrations were checked and adjusted as to present circumstances
every five years. Interestingly, we have clear evidence that Augustus had
official censuses in 28 and 8 B.C.E. 26
This was a twenty year interval, and, of course, divisible by periods of
five years. The next five-year time for checking would have been 3 B.C.E.
This was the precise year that the imperial oath recorded on the
Paphlagonian inscription took place (sworn by both Roman citizens and
natives).

Professor Sherwin-White of Oxford University said it
was customary for provincial Romans to have their citizenships “checked” or
to renew imperial privileges at certain cities to which citizens politically
belonged. The normal thing for Roman provincials was to
“be registered at his
native city.”27
In Asia Minor there were “archive cities” throughout the area where Roman
imperial records were deposited. Many Roman provincials could prove their
citizenship status by reference to those records. If the “oath” in
Paphlagonia was the same as the “oath” that Josephus said took place in
Judaea, and if both “oaths” were a part of the “census” mentioned by Luke,
then perhaps Luke’s remark that
“everyone went into his own city”
(Luke 2:3) might make sense for Roman provincials as well as non-Romans.
This fits in well chronologically because all people periodically (and
normally it was every five years) had to have their legal privileges or
limitations checked at the “archive cities.” And 3 B.C.E. was an exact five
year period from the last Roman census. This would help to show that this
particular year was indeed a year in which a “census” or a “registration”
would have occurred even under ordinary circumstances.

The Twenty Years Census Period

Recall that the official censuses involving taxation
were in 28 B.C.E. and 8 B.C.E. This was an exact 20-year period between the
two censuses. The next official census according to Augustus was in C.E. 14.
That is 21 years after 8 B.C.E. ― not 20 years as one might expect. Could it
be that a whole year was dropped out of taxation accounting in that period?
Was the majestic Silver Jubilee year of 2 B.C.E. a non-taxable year? If so,
note what would then have happened. The next five year period for checking
the personal affairs and effects of Romans would have been in C.E. 4 and the
next in C.E. 9, followed, of course, by the regular census five years later
in C.E. 14. Interestingly, C.E. 4 and C.E. 9 were the exact years in which
Augustus passed the social legislation pertaining to Roman citizens. 28
If what I am saying is true then we have, in the time of Augustus, official,
censuses occurring every 20 years. This must be the case because professors
Vermes and Millar report that the earliest actually attested census for
taxation was in C.E. 33/34, and that is 20 years after the last official
census of Augustus in C.E. 14. 29
All of the five year periods between the main 20-year censuses could be
called minor censuses.

The year 2 B.C.E., however, was reckoned so glorious
― a new beginning for Augustus and Rome ― that it looks like imperial
taxation and evaluation ceased during that year if people would give their
oath of allegiance to Augustus as their Pater Patriae and that they
reckoned him as their universal lord. This could well be the case. It was
not uncommon to remit some or all taxes at times.

Remitting part or all taxes was no new thing,
especially if special circumstances were involved. Herod in order to honor
his good fortune and because he was in a cheerful mood canceled a fourth
part of taxes to the delight of his subjects. They went away with the
greatest joy, wishing the king all sorts of good things. 30
The Romans remitted taxes from the Jews in their sabbatical years. 31
Even within the Empire it was not uncommon to cancel taxes at times of
national joy at the accession of an emperor. Note that Alexander Severus
cited a precedent of earlier emperors of remitting certain taxations at
times of accession. 32
And, if there was ever a time when Rome was in joy, a feeling that a “new
beginning” and a new “Golden Age” were happening, it was the year 2 B.C.E.
Thus, it seems possible that the people taking the census/oath for the
Pater Patriae of Augustus were granted many fiscal immunities to
accompany the joyful Silver Jubilee of the princeps and the 750th
anniversary of Rome as shown by the priestly records.

This helps to show that the census of Luke was not
for taxation purposes. It was for Augustus’ exaltation to the Pater
Patriae. All of this indicates that the first census conducted by
Quirinius in Herod’s kingdom was for this reason. After all, while Herod was
alive, he collected his own taxes, not Roman officials. But in 3 B.C.E.,
Quirinius was a procurator with unique powers from Augustus and
responsible for conducting the special registration concerning the PaterPatriae for Augustus. It is just that simple.

Was Quirinius Governor in 2 B.C.E.?

There is one question that needs answering. Many
translators of the New Testament render Luke 2:1 as though Quirinius were
governor of Syria. In no way does Luke state this in his original Greek
text, though I used to believe he did. Luke simply said that Quirinius was
ruling or administrating this first registration from
Syria, not that he was the governor of the province. The Greek word Luke
used to show the rulership of Quirinius was hegemoneuontos. It is a
present participle which simply means that Quirinius was ruling or
administrating his duties from the region of Syria. There is not the
slightest indication in Luke’s narrative that identifies the specific office
being held by Quirinius while he was administrating his official
duties.

In normal Greek usage at the time, the word
hegemoneuontos could refer to any type of rulership from that of an
exalted President or a military commander on down through various lesser
offices to that of the local dogcatcher for the city. The word could very
well refer to the fact that Quirinius was a procurator as Justin
Martyr attests. Certainly, Quirinius was NOT the resident governor as so
many assume. In no way do the words of Luke mean such a thing. Indeed,
shortly afterward, Luke 3:1 referred to Pontius Pilate by the exact same
word (and in the exact grammatical structure) and we know from a recent
monumental discovery that Pontius Pilate was a Praefectus Judaeae,
not a senatorial Legatus (Governor) who controlled one of the major
provinces of the Empire. The fact is, Luke’s administrative description of
Quirinius’ powers could dovetail nicely with those of a special
Procurator of Augustus precisely as Justin Martyr said that Quirinius
was. It is wrong to assume that Luke meant that Quirinius was the governor
of the province of Syria.

There is, however, one possibility that could have
made Quirinius to be a temporary governor of sorts. Note that Josephus tells
us that Saturninus was still governor of Syria in the latter part of spring
in 2 B.C.E. 33
But by the following November, Quintilius Varus was then governor and
hearing the charges in Jerusalem against Antipater the son of Herod.
Josephus tells us specifically that Varus had lately taken over the
governorship from Saturninus. 34
This allows for a six month period in which no one knows who was governor of
Syria. This was the summer change-over period from one governor to the next.
Could it be that Saturninus left Syria in late spring, handed affairs over
to Quirinius for the change-over interval, and then Varus took charge in
late September or October of 2 B.C.E.? This is possible.

There was yet no established custom near the time of
Augustus for governors to be in their provincial seats of authority at set
times of the year. Cicero left his province before May 1st in 58
B.C.E. 35
His brother, however, did not leave Rome to take up his proconsulship until
the early part of May. 36
This example shows that sometimes parts of the summer period saw a province
without its resident governor. Obviously, a lieutenant would have been in
charge in some capacity. In fact, Atkinson shows that it was common practice
for some of the summer months not to have provincial governors in residence.
37
Perhaps this is what occurred in the change-over period from Saturninus to
Varus. In truth, there was a good reason why both Saturninus and Varus would
have wanted to be in Rome for the summer of 2 B.C.E. That year was one of
great significance to the citizens of Rome and to those who lived within the
Empire. It was the Silver Jubilee of Augustus’ accession to total power and
the year he was proclaimed the Pater Patriae. This year was looked on
as the apex of the Augustan Peace.

The Celebrations at Rome

Both Saturninus and Varus would have wanted to be in
Rome for the summer months. And both had an ace in hand to do it. Quirinius
was then in Syria having conducted his procuratorial role of conducting a
registration of peoples. Since Quirinius was a man of high rank, and with
the province having peace and security on all sides, there would not have
been the slightest reason for not having Quirinius assume the supreme
command while concluding his procuratorial responsibilities. With Saturninus
gone to Rome in late spring of 2 B.C.E., this would have left Quirinius as
the full administrator until October or so. Something approaching this
explanation might make some people think that Quirinius could have been
considered the temporary governor of the province of Syria. Luke, however,
in no way said that he was. The office that best suits Quirinius while he
was performing his duties in conducting the registration of the people would
be that of Procurator.

It is true that later, in C.E. 6/7, Quirinius
himself became what could more appropriately be called an official governor
of Syria (which then included Palestine). Though even here, he seemed to
have special powers that normal governors did not have. A “census” was also
taken at that time (and Luke referred to it — Acts 5:37) because the
province officially became part of the Roman Empire in that year. But
Justin’s remark that Quirinius was a Procurator when the “census” was
taken at the nativity of Jesus, yet he was full (and undisputed) governor at
the census for taxation in C.E. 6/7, helps to distinguish the two different
“censuses.”

The explanation given in this chapter is reasonable
and solves the difficulty at once. The statement of Luke can make good
historical sense. Indeed, it could be said that Luke provides the key that
shows who governed Syria from 3 B.C.E. on through the summer months of 2
B.C.E. And indeed, why should Luke not be accepted? He was probably a native
of Antioch (or certainly familiar with the area). He was writing to a Roman
nobleman who would surely have been knowledgeable of Roman affairs. Luke was
also a writer who lived much closer to the events than either Josephus or
Dio Cassius the early Roman historian.

The simplicity and reasonableness of the explanation
in this chapter is a strong point in its favor. And interestingly, this
historical information harmonizes the Paphlagonian inscription with
Tertullian (quoting Roman records); this agrees with Justin Martyr (quoting
Roman records) and with Luke (writing to a Roman nobleman). Orosius and
Moses of Khorene the Armenian historian confirm it.

This means that the “census” of Quirinius which has
eluded any positive identification by modern historians is now found in
several historical sources and some of them right at the time the “census”
occurred according to the chronology of the New Testament and that of
secular history. In a word, the “census” of Quirinius associated with the
nativity of Jesus has been found.